funded completely out of county general funds. In that program, we are providing basic remedial education for people who can't read, who can't write. We are providing English as a second language for people who have difficulty speaking English. We are providing very basic work experience programs. We are providing preparation for interviews for just simply going out and meeting potential employers. We are developing ways in which potential employees can meet employers. We have targeted job search programs. Every person who comes into that program goes through an assessment. On the basis of that assessment, they are put into one of these particular program areas.

Now, as the person indicates or demonstrates that they have a potential for benefiting from skilled training, which is what you're talking about and which is a very important part of the JTPA program, those people are moved into JTPA slots as they are vacant, and those are the general relief recipients who are in the JTPA program. They are the ones that we believe and that the contractors believe can best benefit from the JTPA skill training. But they are different programs and it's very unfortunate in the description of these that they get tangled up, but they are funded separately. The emphasis is separate and the direction of the programs is different. We link them together because we want to try to move people from the basic preparation programs, which so many of our general relief people need and which the supervisor is absolutely correct; it's a very important consideration, over to the skills program which are funded separately. So, I regret that they keep getting tangled up, but they do.

Now in the JTPA program, we have always met our goals in this county. We have never had a problem in meeting our goals. We have had a demonstration project in the past year, concentrating on general relief recipients, and we were very successful. Sixtyseven percent of those people-using the CETA guidelines-were terminated successfully, positive terminations, 67 percent; very high. I don't know that you're going to find that with any comparable population anywhere else in the country.

We took that same approach into the program that we have now. We are requiring that contractors place people at the conclusion of the training or they don't get paid.

Now the indications that we've had at this point is a very decent success rate in placements. We are probably going to exceed the goal that the county has in its plan. We are very optimistic about that.

So I share your concern, Congressman, but I think that the record at the end of the year is going to be more than satisfactory in the JTPA program.

Mr. HAWKINS. Let me yield to Mr. Martinez.

Mr. MARTINEZ. The program you were just talking about with such confidence in what the county is being able to accomplish with these general welfare recipients who need some prior training or education-education, I think, is the word you used-before they go to the JTPA program.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Right.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Let me read to you from a newspaper article. The article is somewhat confusing after hearing your comments.

At the Chinatown Service Center, directors of a job training program specializing in teaching Asian refugees to speak English were puzzled when the Los Angeles County sent 20 unemployed blacks to this Chinese-English translator. The Asian refugees, meanwhile, had been sent to another training center run by the county superintendent of schools where none of the instructors could speak their language. These people were waiting around, not learning a damn thing-and it's his terminology—said an exasperated Jensen Ming, the Chinatown project manager.

Across town, the directors of the San Fernando Valley Job Training Center set up to help unemployed women were actually puzzled when their applicants, six of the nine, were men.

This is the targeting that you're talking about doing.

It goes on to cite many instances of that particular program and how confused it is to the people that are trying to run it. Yet I just heard you say, with the utmost confidence, how this is going to really make this program successful by the end of the year.

Mr. GALLOWAY. I don't know what the newspaper article is. The incident that you are referring to, to some extent, did occur. Mr. MARTINEZ. It's a Times article by Leo Wolenski.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes.

Mr. HAWKINS. Could I interrupt? I understand the board of supervisors meets at 10 o'clock. Mr. Edelman, we have your statement and we certainly will have a continuing communication with you and the other members of the board of supervisors.

I was asking Mr. Martinez if he would like to ask a question of Mr. Edelman, and then we will excuse you.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I certainly would because I share your same alarm. When somebody does something in mass force and without any evaluation of those people and their qualifications for a particular program-what I understood you to say was that it was, "Go or you don't receive a check." Especially in the area of aid to families with dependent children. I'd like you to respond to that in just a little bit more detail.

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, I think in my district, which was alluded to, and Mr. Hahn's district-and I think this should be expanded upon a little bit by Mr. Galloway and Mr. Hufford-we've had difficulties from people who are on AFDC getting a job training slot in the area that I represent, or that Mr. Hahn represents, because all the slots are being utilized by general relief people. In the urban area, my district, the 3d, and Mr. Hahn's district, most of the slots, if not all, for job training are being taken up by general relief recipients. Am I correct, Mr. Galloway?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Correct.

Mr. EDELMAN. And, therefore, a woman who is anxious and would benefit from training and has a family to support, can't get that training experience and may not get the job. She will have to stays on AFDC, which is a cost to the Federal Government and to us. Instead, the training funds that could be used for her are being, in my judgment, squandered into trying to train people that may not be motivated for training or able to handle training and won't benefit from training. So the limited dollars are not going to the right group is what I'm saying.

In the urban area, we've had to turn away providers. They've come to me some in the area that you represent; I'm sure you've heard from them. They can't handle the people from the area. They have to send them outside. They can't get training. So it's

been a very damaging program from all points of view, from providers, from people who want training, from saving money. I say it's a failure and I think the county should put a halt to it right away. Unfortunately, we haven't had that, although there's been some. There's a board agenda item today that is supposed to stop it for a while. Maybe Mr. Hufford wants to talk to you more about that. I'm not here to ask questions, but I think you should find out why people, who are not on general relief, in the urban area that I represent and Mr. Hahn represents can't get job training who are not on general relief.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Edelman, I'd like Mr. Hufford to respond to that. But, before you leave, I'd like to ask you just one more thing. Maybe you can clarify some confusion.

I read a statement where there were 9,000 slots allocated to Los Angeles County but that there were 12,000 general welfare recipients referred to that program. And yet I heard Mr. Hufford say that only 34 percent of the JTPA money is being used for general welfare. That seems like an inconsistent statement and one or the other is not true.

Mr. EDELMAN. Well, it's confusing. If you look on attachment I, which is on Mr. Hufford's last page or next to the last page, you will see the 1983-84 Job Training Partnership Act. You can see that, for the county area, some $12 million of funds have been available. Of the $12 million for adults now, $4.5 million has been used for general relief and only $1.5 million for other participants. Is that right? I'm reading from your figures. So that doesn't square because I think what they are talking about is lumping in youth and other groups into the funds that are eligible for nongeneral relief. I think if you just look at adults, the adults are getting $1.5 million out of the $7 million-these are for adults who are nongeneral relief. They are getting a lot less than 30 percent-it doesn't even look like 50 percent; $1.5 million of the $7 million-it's less than, what, one-seventh, maybe one-sixth. So they are getting only 20 percent. And the general relief is getting more than half, 40 percent. So I think these figures are right from the CAO or from the department of community services, and they cast a shadow on how our funds are being used. We're using this as a general relief bailout program, general relief bailout. I don't think that's what Congress intended. I don't think that's what the public wants. We should handle general relief separately and not force general relief. You ought to ask about this mandatory requirement that we're telling people, "You must go to job training or you're going to lose your general relief." That may be beyond the purview of this committee, but I think that that smacks of forcing people into training that can't benefit from training or who don't want training. You're wasting the Federal dollars.

Mr. DYMALLY. Just a quick question. Did this program conception come from the CAO or from the majority of the supervisors?

Mr. HUFFORD. I think I should speak out. It came off a board letter I submitted to the board. The board voted for it, but I think it's something that was submitted by me and the other department heads of the county.

Mr. GALLOWAY. It's a recommendation based on material that we submitted as the result of the pilot program that I talked about earlier. Mr. Hufford and I presented that to

Mr. EDELMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have to leave.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

In connection with the chart on attachment I just referred to, I guess that's the amount, $4.5 million-

Mr. HUFFORD. Millions of dollars, yes. The chart is in millions of dollars and then the percentages at the bottom are the basis for my testimony.

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes; we estimate that it's roughly about $690 per participant for training. Is that about correct?

Mr. GALLOWAY. No; the slot cost in the JTPA program-it would be approximately $1,700 per person in the JTPA program, approximately.

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, under the county plan, it says, "For the adult program, the average cost per participant will be a low of $630 to a high of $770."

Mr. GALLOWAY. Well I'm not sure what that is.

Mr. HAWKINS. That's in the county plan as submitted to the State's employment development department [EDD]. Are you familiar with it?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes; but I don't know the context-

Mr. HAWKINS. That was in the submission to EDD; that's where we pick it up. That is the cost per participant.

Mr. GALLOWAY. I don't know if that's all categories or if it's title IIA.

The contracts that we've negotiated with our service providers call for a contract expenditure of the average of somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,700 per person.

Mr. HAWKINS. For the training aspect of it?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes; for the total cost of the program.

Mr. HAWKINS. The only thing we can go by is the plan which was submitted which I assume was approved by the State.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes; our plan is, as always, subject to modification. We have a modification pending with the State.

Mr. HAWKINS. You have to realize that all the relevant factors were included in the plan. That was the reason for requiring a plan, so we could take the plan, look at the plan, and see whether the plan meets the Federal requirements. On that basis, judge whether or not the plan is substantively correct and the basis on which the performance will eventually be judged. Mr. HUFFORD. This is in a submittal

Mr. HAWKINS. You've modified it since that time; we have no notice of any modification.

Mr. GALLOWAY. There is a modification pending, but the instructions have not been made available at this point and will not be made available until the 15th of March.

Mr. HAWKINS. What you're saying now is that approximately $1,700 will be the average cost.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes. These are more nearly correct.

Congressman, I'm not sure that I can respond to that particular issue at this time, and the youth program is right below that. Those contract costs are more nearly representing what we have.

The others I'd have to read back through this now to get that figure for you now. I don't know if that's the total cost of a participant in all categories or if that's just the contract cost for the title II program.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would you submit to the committee any modifications you've made or, if there are any corrections in the plan which are to be made, let us have the benefit of them so we can be better acquainted with what the plan is doing.

Mr. GALLOWAY. When the plan was submitted, as the panel is aware, we were still in the process of having hearings at the State level on the nature of the service delivery areas. In the course of that, there were service delivery areas created that were not contemplated at the time we had been preparing our document. Since then we've had to modify our plan and there are instructions coming to us-they have not been made available to the State yet-but there are instructions coming which will deal with that modification.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think Mr. Martinez was asking a question prior to the time Supervisor Edelman spoke.

Did you get an answer to your question?

Mr. MARTINEZ. No.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Was that in relation to the numbers of people? I think he raised two questions. One, the numbers of people, and then the misreferrals that were made of people erroneously.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Right.

Mr. GALLOWAY. There were misreferrals that were made.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Let me back up just a little.

Part of the whole question to Mr. Edelman was the area of mandating without evaluation. Mandating that everyone in the general relief program

Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes; let me explain how the process works because there are three different situations which you've raised there.

First, there has always been a requirement in the general relief program for the county. It has nothing to do with our work and training programs operated in any other department, but the general relief program has always required that an employable person accept any employment offer that's made or any training offer that's made that leads to employment. That's a standing requirement. It's been there for many, many years. So there's nothing that we have added to that for these particular programs.

We simply are picking up a person from the department of public social service who has been determined to be eligible-most of that determination is made on the person's own statement. They indicate that they are employable. So we do take those people in. Now, then, once they get in, they are then put through an assessment process. On the basis of that assessment, they are assigned into a particular area for training or skills as the case may warrant.

Early in the program when we first started this, you raised a question about the numbers of people. We had anticipated in the planning of the program that there would be approximately 9,000 people that were referred to us from the department of public social services. I think, as Mr. Hufford pointed out to you earlier,